- Status
A
Annie
Guest
Who are you calling no one?
To me, there is a difference between a random skin cell or heart cell and a cell which is of the type which grows into full human bodies (or sheep or whatever). And those cells, zygotes, are of their species.
I think that whether something happens naturally or artificially is important, because for all these millenia, we have been thinking along the lines of things happening in their natural way.
And the reason the Church condemns certain acts is that doing some things artificially disturbs the order that exists.
You do realize that people used to live without all this technology? It is possible…
This is your definition of life. Why should anyone accept it? --I remember your rationale for accepting it, I just don’t understand why your rationale is so overwhelming that it trumps the biological view that if something is growing, etc., it is alive, because to me, all that your definition does is minimize the humanity of unborn humans so people will think it is ok to kill them.
It does matter, because we should compare things that are alike, not things that are not alike. An adult bonobo chimpanzee has nowhere near the bra(name removed by moderator)ower of an adult human, and a child bonobo the age-equivalent of a human 2- or 4-year-old, has nowhere near the bra(name removed by moderator)ower of the human child.
It sounds like you are saying that humans should be judged as individuals as to whether or not they should live based on their cranial capacities. If they are smarter than an adult chimp, they stay.
it’s not just intelligence…
A
Annie
Guest
Using a biological definition makes this sooooooo much easier. Trying to parse thinking functions just confuses the issue of what constitutes a human.
So you would put an older animal over a human?
We do not get to choose functionalities. We especially do not get to choose secondary functionalities over primary functionalities.
Tell that to the millions of people who have to live with the consequences of car accidents, construction accidents, manufacturing accidents…
No, with the “accident” of pregnancy, one can just kill the “consequence” and avoid it, but for real accidents, people do have to live with the consequences.
Do you really not see a difference between something caused by human agency and something which happens naturally? If I shot up a nursing home, no way could I get away with saying, “The majority of the people in there are going to die, I only facilitated this natural process, so it cannot be called murder.”
Why is it not desirable?
A
Annie
Guest
Oh, He did.
I think that for a full understanding of the problems we encounter in our society, we need to understand more about the workings of the human spirit. Our minds are informed not only by the world around us but by our souls, and by the rules of life which God implanted in our hearts.
Can you honestly believe that sleeping around has no ill effects on anyone? Aside from pregnancy, consider how the suicide rate has risen since the advent of the sexual revolution. Even people who can’t have sex are deeply affected by the idea that they should be able to.
On the one hand, we know deep down inside that you can’t get something for nothing, that simply covering up the purpose of sex with artificial birth control is a kind of cheat.
On the other, we have millions of men and women who suffer to the extent of mental disorder the effects of serial monogamy, abuse by con artists, and the pressures of apparently needing to present oneself in a way which attracts sexually.
My best wishes to you as well
Exactly.
Confusion is needed to advance a pro-abortion argument.
G
grotto
Guest
A question to the atheists and abortion promoters:
What about the Soul? Try and explain IF the Soul is destroyed as well as the human babe in the womb.
Add an explanation of Time, as those of us created by God does NOT apply to God, and therefore cannot be used to justify an argument for an abortion. The Soul is the “before and after” earthly life.
Remember they are united at conception until death.
What about the Soul? Try and explain IF the Soul is destroyed as well as the human babe in the womb.
Add an explanation of Time, as those of us created by God does NOT apply to God, and therefore cannot be used to justify an argument for an abortion. The Soul is the “before and after” earthly life.
Remember they are united at conception until death.
E
Economist
Guest
That difference is negated by the technology of cloning. And technology cannot be disregarded. If we had a new technology to simply revive the victims of a homicide, the killing would be considered much less serious. It is the reversibility (or lack of it) of an act which decides how serious the evaluation of an act is.
The times are a’changing.
I would not want to live the “natural” life of cave-men. I bet you would shy away, too, if given the opportunity. Today, you could choose the life of a hermit, living alone in the wilderness (naked and without even a knife), if you would find that technology-free life is “desirable”. All the “artificial” technologies of shelters, food production, transportation, medications, hey, even the internet… and the zillion other advantages (and yes, disadvantages, too) in our lives all made our lives much longer, much more enjoyable. Our life expectancy is not about 20-some years any more, we do not die prematurely due to some easy-to-cure disease.
Our lives are intertwined with technology. Of course some aspects of technology can be used for nefarious purposes, but that is not the fault of the technology, but the fault of the users. Unfortunately there is no hammer that can only be used on a nail, but not on someone’s head.
Remove the brain, and the body will die. If the only criterion for having a human life would be “growing”, then a tumor would also considered to be human… if the DNA is sufficiently similar to the so-called “human” DNA. (Of course the word “sufficiently” similar is seriously under-defined.) Any and all organs can be removed or substituted by an artificial prosthesis (or transplants) - except the brain - and the person essentially remains the same (essence vs. accidents? Aquinas, anyone?).
E
Economist
Guest
I keep on looking for a mutually satisfactory definition of what constitutes a “human”, but so far no results. The DNA is too hazy, since it does not take into account the mutations. The “rational animal” is also unsatisfactory, since it does not take into account the non-biological building materials, and the hypothetical space aliens; not to mention the positive mutations in the animals. Some proponents attempt to include the concept of some “immortal soul”, but there is no evidence for that.
So the question of “what constitutes a human” is far from being simple or trivial.
This is not what I said. I meant that the building material is irrelevant, a sapient (and possibly a sentient) being should be considered an “honorary” human. And to be treated accordingly. But, of course people are different, and sometimes must be treated differently.
Sure we do. We do it all the time. Our legs are “designed” for getting from one place to another, but we are able to “abuse” this facility by dancing, or participating in the track-and-field events. Our mouth was “designed” for intake of food, but there is a secondary functionality of transmitting information, or even singing (horribile dictu!) for pleasure. Almost all our organs have multiple uses, but sex is singled out for some strange reason and declared that it is not acceptable to separate the possible uses, and it is forbidden to pursue the pleasure seeking function without the procreating function. There is no rational reason for this differentiation.
I read once that this is due to the fact that evolution happened to combine the reproductive function with the eliminating functionality into one organ. Since we try to avoid the results of the elimination (health reasons) and keep the pleasurable aspect of those organs, it caused a conflict regarding these organs. The observation of St. Augustine an Hippo: “inter feces and urinam nascimur” is unpalatable for many people.
If God wanted to have such a separation, he could have made a different arrangement, when sex is “available” only during the estrus.
If we can rectify the results of an accident, we do it. Broken bones are mended, wounds are covered by medication and healed. As much we can rectify the results of accidents, we do. And that is true for the accidental conceptions.
E
Economist
Guest
This kind of arguing might be taken seriously, if you (and other proponents) would suggest to make prevention of the unwanted by-products as effective as possible, or make the unwanted procreation simply impossible. (Non-vaginal sex is 100% effective in preventing pregnancies!). But until you do that, you cannot be taken seriously as rational beings.
Of course I do. But that does not make the morning after pill a “murder”. Or even removing a blastocyst from the uterus. Of course this brings us back to the question: “what is a human BEING”? As opposed to human DNA, human cells, human tissue, human organ… We are back to square one, aren’t we? Until this question is resolved, no other advancement is possible.
Because it can be (and usually is) traumatic for the person. This is the reason that the “pro-abortion” label is incorrect, though it can be useful to dehumanize the “pro-choice” crowd.
An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure. Old, but very wise observation.
This is the point where we part our ways - for obvious reasons.
No, “we” do not. It is an opinion, which is shared by some people, and negated by others. For most women, artificial birth control is a God-send, something that allows women to live their lives according to their desires, and not “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen”. Something that avoids the nightmare of the “Handmaid’s Tale”, where the fertile women’s name is “Offred” or “Ofrobert”. No male politician should have ANY say-so in the question of pregnancy and birth control. If only God would play a “nice” little trick on us, and swap the role of child-raring so that males would have to carry the burden of pregnancy and the birth… there would be no “anti-abortion bill”, only very effective “anti-pregnancy pill”.
Sorry for the long post.
Morality does not change.
You are the only one claiming human DNA isn’t human DNA.
Your definition lacks credibility.
The magic that is technology let’s us swap out organs. A tech that did not exist a century ago.
Life does not depend upon what we can or cannot do. Life depends upon what something is and what it does.
We know when a new human comes into being, the DNA tells us what it is.
And we can readily see all of the traits of life in this organism.
So if you cannot define what a human is, why risk murder?
Shouldn’t you fail towards caution?
If I am out in the woods hunting, and I hear what sounds like a deer, but cannot verify it, I would be negligent for shooting anyway.
Same logic.
If you cannot adequately define a human, you should refrain from killing it until you can verify if it is or is not.
C
claudine
Guest
very good point sally! Thank you for correcting that
- Status